Monday, March 31, 2008

Evolution means the gradual development of all life on earth from one universal common ancestor through a process of variation and natural selection.

There are basically two problems with this concept.

Problem #1: Evolution is impossibly improbable

Evolution proposes that vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated through a random chance process, provided that a great deal of time and space are available and some external selective force limits this random process.

This is basically comparable to someone illiterate attempting to publish books through random trial and error and customer selection. He would buy a printing press, open a bookstore, start printing and make more copies of whatever sold. At first he just arranged his printing type at random, printed and put the results on the shelves. No one bought anything since it was all gibberish. He threw all these failures into the trash bin and continued printing. Eventually, purely by chance, one small booklet actually made sense and in fact became a best seller. So he kept printing more copies of it. Occasionally, there would be some typographical error in the printing; purely by chance, a page would be smudged, a line would be missing. Generally these errors would cause the book to be defective and it would be thrown into the trash, however once in a while a typo would add more meaning to a copy of the book – perhaps a few interesting new sentences. People would ask for more copies of it. The illiterate author would then faithfully reproduce that typo. Gradually entire new books developed through this process of random typographical errors and customer selection. Eventually, the inventory in the book shop had expanded to include tens of millions of titles including novels, plays, poetry, scientific textbooks, history, biography, huge dictionaries and encyclopedias and so on. In fact, these books were actually far more beautiful and profound than books ever written by any human author. All of these were produced by a totally illiterate author through a process of random printing, typos and customer selection over a very long period of time.

Needless to say, such a process is unimaginably unlikely to be successful. It has already been calculated, for example, that the possibility of a monkey typing Hamlet is infinitesimally small.

For more details about this problem, I recommend the book "Not By Chance" by Lee Spetner.

The atheistic response to this is as follows: God's origin would be even more improbable than the origin of life. Therefore belief in God resolves nothing.

This response is nonsense since God is eternal. For their argument to be valid, atheists would have to prove that an eternal Creator cannot exist, however of course they can't.

Problem #2: Evolution contradicts the fossil record

Over the past 200 years, paleontologists have very carefully examined the fossil record. If evolution were true, then we should see evidence of billions of intermediary stages between the earliest life and each of today’s living species, along with countless examples of failed organisms that could not reproduce. According to evolutionary theory, we should see a continuous very gradual change in life on earth from its first appearance following the formation of the oceans up to and including the present. (Evolution means "gradual improvement".) Major global catastrophes, if they occur, should result in a major reduction in the complexity of life on earth, not a sudden advancement to more complex forms. What we find instead are distinct eras populated with fully developed ecosystems: the Paleozoic Era, the Mesozoic Era and the Cenozoic Era, each of which seems to appear and disappear abruptly. The problem is not several missing links. The problem is that the overall pattern of the fossils is wrong. This clearly falsifies evolution. (However, it does not in my opinion contradict Judaism.)

Additional Comments

It should be pointed out that animal breeding only works within narrow limits. Therefore it has no connection to evolution. Also, the fact that there are similarities between different animals does not prove a genetic relationship any more than similarities between different man made machines proves a genetic relationship. Allegedly vestigial organs really are not. "Poorly designed" animals are really just poorly understood. Bear in mind also that evolutionists have been known to use fraudulent misinformation to promote their beliefs. They also consider anyone who rejects Darwinism to be by definition an incompetent scientist, thereby in effect silencing any dissent within the scientific community.

Saying that evolution has nothing to do with atheism is far from accurate. The publication of "Origin of Species" made atheism respectable, popular and supposedly scientific. Prior to 1859, calling someone an atheist was equivalent to calling him a psychopath.

Darwin has been almost deified by atheists, some of whom celebrate Darwin Day. The Origins of Species is a stupid little book which would ordinarily have been immediately forgotten except for the fact that it promotes atheism. Some atheists treat it like a Bible. The word evolution is used by atheists as a substitute for God (as in "evolution designed", "evolution created", etc.).

One thing extremely important to bear in mind when discussing evolution is that “natural selection” is merely a limiting and not a guiding factor. Natural selection can never reach into DNA and fix it to work better. That would be an example of “intelligent design” which is of course anathema to evolutionists. Rather, what is happening is that every organism, which was formed through pure random chance interaction of chemicals, radiation, etc., allegedly tries it’s hardest to reproduce as much as possible. Then “Nature” comes along and stops it at some point. An animal may die before it can reproduce at all, or it may die after having only one offspring, or after only a few generations, or it may have great survival abilities and overrun the whole planet, as humans have. That is all that natural selection can do. The fittest survive based on the limitations of nature, however the fittest arrive through random chance.

Most scientists are evolutionists although evolution is obviously false. The reason for this is because evolution means that there is no Biblical God, therefore there is no prophesy and therefore scientists are society's most important intellectuals. Therefore a great many scientists believe in evolution.

Many people who are devoutly religious also accept evolution. This includes members of the Roman Catholic Church and modern Orthodox Judaism. I believe that this has happened because of the popular perception, promoted by many scientists, that evolution has been “proven by science” and therefore it is unquestionably true. I would describe such individuals as “Useful Idiots”, in other words naive people cynically being used by atheists for their own selfish purposes. Two of the most prominent people in this category are Professor Kenneth Miller and Rabbi Natan Slifkin. Evolution certainly did not originate with religious people nor is it promoted primarily by religious people.

Some people might question how an ordinary layman such as myself can contradict the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. I am sure that a few hundred years ago, someone could likewise have asked how an ordinary Jew could question the resurrection of Jesus, which was accepted as unquestionable fact by all Western scholars and professors at that time. The answer is that any rational and well-informed person can and should separate the truth from officially endorsed nonsense. Bear in mind that education and official position have nothing to do with morality and honesty.

It is interesting to note, incidentally, that this international scientific statement about evolution seems a little more cautious than some American and British publications on the issue.

Conclusions

Evolution has no basis in science. It contradicts the most elementary principles of probability and paleontology. It certainly has no relationship to exact laboratory sciences such as chemistry, biology and physics. No Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for a contribution to evolutionary theory. No new technology or medical treatment is dependent on the theory of evolution. While having great philosophical, theological and political importance, it has no relevance to science. It cannot even be called honest speculation about natural history. Rather, evolution is a fiction based upon a desire to deny God. It is an extremely dangerous fairy tale being fraudulently labeled "science". It has been called a universal acid which destroys tradition. It was one of the primary causes of the Second World War. It might be compared to Marxism, which was also not a science, but instead was a fiction based upon a desire to rob the wealthy. Perhaps not by coincidence, Christopher Hitchens, a great promoter of evolution, is also a former Marxist.

Your nonsense stinks to high heaven, but your description of Evolutionary process being analogous to a blind publisher is brilliant(did you come up with it? It is so unlike your writing)!

I agree totally with your analogy, and it parallels evolution to a tee! Now, the issue JP, is as follows:

I am willing to accept your analogy. If one were to come up with a computer program such that it served essentially as a blind publisher, going through the machinations as you described, would you accept the outcome? I submit to you that given enough publications and winnowing, that ultimately a beautifully written book will emerge. If it does not, then I will admit to you that Evolutionary processes are not reality. The question is if such a book were to emerge, would you then become an Evolutionist?

I made up the publisher analogy and a computer program demonstrating that evolution does work would go a long way to convincing me of the truth of evolution and atheism. There would still be the fossil problem however.

But just a hint: a computer simulation like that won't work. Before you get one legible page the sun will have burned out.

The website you linked to, wherein there are simulated monkeys typing is interesting, but fatally flawed.Here are the flaws:

1. The web site calculates the odds of producing a book by random from scratch. It says that the odds of a monkey typing one letter at random are 1 in 80. Getting 2 letters in a row, the odds are 1 in 80^2 etc. Since a book of Shakespeare is hundred of thousands of letters, then the odds would be 1 in 80 to the hundreds of thousandth power!

But this ignores natural selection.

Without selection, it would take practically forever for a group of monkeys to randomly type a Shakespearean work. The odds of a million monkeys typing feverishly, typing 1 letter per second of producing a work of Shakespeare are 1 in 80 to the power of hundreds of seconds, which is practically impossible.

But, using SELECTION, if I wanted monkeys to produce a Shakespearean work, I would do the following: Suppose I want monkeys to type "Tomorrow, tomorrow, he will strut and fret his hour upon a stage and then is heard no more..."

First I would wait for a monkey to randomly type the word "tomorrow" by accident. The odds of doing that are about 1 in 80^8 power. A group of a million monkey typists should bang out such a word in 800 seconds (do the math), or about 13 minutes. Now, we would select this word. Next, we would wait for the monkeys to randomly type �tomorrow� again, which would take another 13 minutes. We would now select this word too, so within 26 minutes, we have �tomorrow, tomorrow�. Now, the word �he� takes only a mere fraction of a second to produce at random, since there are a million monkeys typing away. Similarly, �will�, �strut�, �fret� are easy words that would take mere seconds to produce. In fact, all the other words are short and easily produced at random. Thus, constructing this sentence should take less than one half of one hour!

But you see, the key here is SELECTION. Note that with selection, the process is not random. The monkeys randomly bang away at the typewriter but there is a selection process going. It is the selection part of the equation that Creationists are missing. This is the key step that all of us have been trying to hammer in to antievolutionists. I hope you see the point now.

2. Your analogy of a blind publisher does not apriori assume that a Shakespearean work will be produced. The process is random. Some kind of a book will be produced but it would not necessarily be a specific book such as Shakespeare. If you were to roll back time and allow evolution to restart, there is no guarantee that we will get the same exact animals that we have today. No one says that with another go at Evolution that we would have lions and zebras. Evolution may take several paths, depending on the selection forces at a given time and depending on the nature of mutations that have randomly presented. What I am saying is that you should not wait for the monkeys to produce the work of Shakespeare. Any work of fiction would do.

Finally, I know that all that I have written has fallen on a deaf ear with JP. I wanted to make it clear to the fair minded reader how the process of Evolution really works.

In evolution, an external selective force merely LIMITS the random process. In other words, an organism which cannot reproduce will simply die leaving no offspring while random chance mutations continue to occur in the survivors.

In your example, the external selective force actually is GUIDING the random process. A partial sentence, although by itself meaningless and not marketable, is being frozen while the remainder of the sentence is assembled.

I agree that for evolution to be plausible we do not need to demonstrate that specifically human beings or Jewish philosophers will result from the process. However we do have to demonstrate that vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated.

There is no way to estimate what exactly the likelihood of that is, however common sense tells us that the chance of it occurring is incredibly small.

I understand that there is a documentary being released in April that explores the problem of scientists who question Darwinian orthodoxy, and wind up being marginalized as a result. I belive the title is "Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed." It might make for interesting viewing.

In Darwins day, everybody though that the cell was simple blob of jelly. Now we understand that the simplest cell is at least as complex as a whole city. This fact makes evolution much harder to accept.

JP, I congratulate you on your last post. Here, you have a coherent retort, one that makes sense, one that actually addresses the issues I was previously raising.

And you are in fact correct; the SELECTION process in my example was guided, perhaps more so than natural selection. But I chose this example because the task at hand was to reproduce the specific work of Shakespeare. In the example of Monkeys going at it to produce a random work of fiction, the selection process would be somewhat different. Here, a clip of Monkey writing would be presented to a person. If the clip made sense, then you would keep that writing and move on to different samples. You would then add up sections that make sense. You would then keep going, as the sections make more and more sense until you have a coherent book. Do this billions and billions of times and you should get a great work of fiction.

Bear in mind, however, that in evolution, genetic mutations are rare and most are harmful. Therefore, generally we are just going to see the same organisms being reproduced again and again. Mutations will generally knock an organism out of the game. Very rarely will a mutation be preserved and reproduced and add seemingly purposeful complexity.

This is analogous to my example of an occasional typographical error in the printing; purely by chance, a page would be smudged, a line would be missing. Generally these errors would cause the book to be defective and it would be thrown into the trash, however once in a while a typo would add more meaning to a copy of the book – perhaps a few interesting new sentences. People would ask for more copies of it. The illiterate author would then faithfully reproduce that typo. Gradually entire new books can develop through this process of random typographical errors and customer selection.

Again, I contend that before this would actually happen, all the galaxies would have disappeared.

JP as I said, I agree with your analogy, but not with your conclusion.

Just as an aside, it is not true that most mutations are harmful. My understanding is that our gene pool is redundant, with vast swaths of DNA with no discernable function. Here, a mutation usually is neither harmful nor beneficial. My understanding is that the chance of a given mutation at a given gene locus is about 1 in 1 million. Since we have billions of base pairs, on average all of us have hundreds of mutations. Yet we seem to be doing ok, which goes to show that most mutations are not phenotypically manifest. This, of course, is irrelevent to our discussion, and on the whole I agree with you.

A neutral mutation would be the equivalent of typographical error having no influence on the value of the book one way or the other. It would be irrelevant to the creation of new literature, or evolution, as you point out.

JP: Evolution means the gradual development of all life on earth from one universal common ancestor through a process of variation and natural selection.

CH: Correct.

JP: Evolution proposes that vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated through a random chance process, provided that a great deal of time and space are available and some external selective force limits this random process.

CH: More or less correct. The process though is not purely 'a random chance' process. It is directed by survivability in the environment.

JP: This is basically comparable to...

CH: Badrabbi did a good job of pointing out that any process where bad errors are weeded out and good errors priviledged will inevitably lead to results like evolution.

Errors that don't matter to the survivability of the species (like the genes for tasting sugar in cats, or the bum genes for processing vitamin A in humans), stick around.

JP: Needless to say, such a process is unimaginably unlikely to be successful.

CH: On the contrary. It is not just imaginable, it is demonstrable both in the lab and in the field.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So despite the fact you think the process is somehow too incredible to be real (yet an other variation on the fallacious argument from personal incredulity) we have real world examples that demonstrate its truth.

JP: An evolutionist may answer, “True, the chance of life emerging spontaneously is infinitesimally small, however to say that some intelligent designer created life makes the problem even worse, since in that case you must explain how the intelligent designer somehow emerged spontaneously.”

I would respond “Wrong. God is a transcendent being. He exists outside of time and space and His nature is incomprehensible to mere humans. He requires no designer because He has always existed.”

CH: You could also say that Tralfamadorians, or that Yagroth the Sranchammer, or Cthullu are responsible with equal certainty.

You don't make your case more believable by invoking hypothetical transcendental beings as your solution to the problem you raise.

This is the precise case where Occam's razor is required to trim away the nonsense you bring to the table; "Though shalt not invoke unecessary entities".

We have an explanation that is testable and demonstrable by natural processes on one hand, and we have a miraculous process that requires a series of divine interventions by a hypothetical entity with hypothetical creation abilities that operate by processes and methods beyond our understanding on the other.

CH: Do you believe in all non-physical things? Ghosts? Shades? Leprechauns? Vampires? UFO abductions? That every rock, tree, stream, etc. all have their own unique spirits? The great Raven God? How do you pick and choose which invisible non-physical immaterial things you are going to believe in? How do you adjudicate the effects of your favourite invisible super-beings and those of someone else?

JP: So ultimately, evolution rests merely on the atheistic personal belief of evolutionists and nothing more.

CH: Not at all. The evidence for evolution as a natural process is widely accepted around the world. The presence of invisible super-beings who enact special creation events and falsify fossil records to make evolution look true is something only a small number of deluded conspiracy theorists engage in.

JP: Atheists seem to choose this belief because it allows them greater sexual freedom.

CH: Few sentences could be more idiotic. Atheism is not a 'belief system', it is a simple philosophical position. You can be a Communist atheist (Mao), a Marxist atheist (Marx), a nihilist atheist (Nietzsche), a secular humanist atheist (Asimov, Hoffstadter, me, others), a reformed socialist turned liberal-hawk atheist (Hitchens), a pro-capitalist atheist (Rand), a libertarian atheist (most of the people at Reason magazine), a Jewish skeptic (Spinoza) or even Christian agnostics (Kierkegaard).

All of the above would share the simple premise that belief in God is not supported by evidence.

(That said, Kierkegaard suggests we should believe in her anyway for other reasons).

Nor do we ditch supernatural beings from our world view out of a sense that this will increase our sexual freedom! We ditch them because they are incoherent, irrational, and mistaken.

As for restrictive sexual practices being a downside to religion - I guess if the shoe fits...

I'd paraphrase him a little in this case and suggest "Nothing in the fossil record makes sense except in the light of evolution"

JP: Over the past 200 years, paleontologists have very carefully examined the fossil record. If evolution were true, then we should see evidence of billions of intermediary stages between the earliest life and each of today’s living species, along with countless examples of failed organisms that could not reproduce.

CH: False. The suggestion that we should see 'billions of intermediary stages' is the major error. Nature and the Earth don't go out of their way to preserve every member of every species when they die to fulfill your intellectual requirement for believing in evolution.

A bog here, a dry riverbed there, a frozen mammoth elsewhere and that's it, and we make do.

Indeed, the fossil record does nothing but support evolutionary theory. In the case of human evolution we can see how the skeletons of human ancestors show more and more ape-like features as we go back into the past. The major family traits of mammals, amphibians, birds, etc. are also only coherently explainable with evolution, and are once again confirmed by the fossil record and genetics.

JP: What we find instead are distinct eras populated with fully developed ecosystems: the Paleozoic Era, the Mesozoic Era and the Cenozoic Era, each of which seems to appear and disappear abruptly. This clearly falsifies evolution.

CH: If by 'abruptly' you mean 'over millions of years', and if by 'falsifies' you actually mean 'provides confirming evidence for'.

JP:It should be pointed out that animal breeding only works within narrow limits. Therefore it has no connection to evolution.

CH: Animal breeding is just an example of how evolution can work relatively quickly to produce a wide range of genetic variation. What are these 'narrow limits' you think exist?

JP: Also, the fact that there are similarities between different animals does not prove a genetic relationship any more than similarities between different man made machines proves a genetic relationship.

CH: Granted, but a similar genetic relationship does prove a genetic relationship - and genetics verifies evolution!

JP: Allegedly vestigial organs really are not.

CH: Oh? Found a purposeful use for your wisdom teeth did you?

JP: "Poorly designed" animals are really just poorly understood.

CH: Right, so the fact that all cats (which certainly appear to be related) share the same genetic corruption that prevents them from tasting sugar, and that this poor design is really just a poor understanding, and that all cats aren't really related to each other but are instead the produce of a series of miraculous events that just happens to make them look alike and share the same genetic defect.

Oh yeah, your building an ironclad case all-right.

JP: Bear in mind also that evolutionists will not hesitate to use fraudulent misinformation to promote their beliefs.

CH: Exactly. All my critics are liars. I blame the hostile main-stream media. Pay no attention to the man behind curtain.

JP: They also consider anyone who rejects Darwinism to be by definition an incompetent scientist, thereby in effect silencing any dissent within the scientific community.

CH: Yeah, just like they drummed out all the flat-earthers, astrologers and alchemists. Who do these scientists think they are dictating what is science and what isn't!

JP: Most scientists are evolutionists although evolution is obviously false.

CH: Cognitive dissonance here we come! This is going to be good as JP tries to explain why all the best minds of the world involved with science are actually the brainwashed drones of atheist orthodoxy - buckle up!

JP: The reason for this is because many atheists choose a career in science since people who believe that only the physical exists are often very curious about the physical world.

CH: So people who become scientists are interested and curious in how the physical world actually works. Got it. This makes sense as you (a non-scientist) are clearly either uninterested or confused in how the physical world actually works.

JP: And a belief in evolution is almost inevitable if one is an atheist.

CH: Tell that to the former Soviet scientists who were forced/encouraged to produce only papers defending 'Lysenkoism' - an easily discredited theory that endured only because it conformed to Soviet-Marxist theories. One of the reason Soviet scientists envied the West is that our science was free to follow the results and evidence without ideological interference!

JP: "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (“The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins page 6). Therefore a great many scientists believe in evolution.

CH: An excellent book by the way, but I think it's a stretch to suggest that Darwin's theory is what gives atheism its intellectual power. Just as atheists don't have to believe in evolution (like say the Jainists who have some whacky beliefs about creation) people who believe in evolution don't have to be atheists (see Francis Collins). I get tired of pointing this out, but atheism and evolution ARE NOT RELATED.

JP: Many people who are devoutly religious also accept evolution. This includes members of the Roman Catholic Church and modern Orthodox Judaism. I believe that this has happened because of the popular perception, promoted by many scientists, that evolution has been “proven by science” and therefore it is unquestionably true.

CH: It has been proven by science, and it is unquestionably true. Go figure.

JP: I would describe such individuals as “Useful Idiots”, in other words naive people cynically being used by atheists for their own selfish purposes.

CH: I see them as the smart ones. Afterall, evolution simply is true - so why make the falsity of ones religion obvious by putting it in a position of contradicting what all science claims is basic fact? The Catholics made this mistake before with geo-centrism and Galileo, and it isn't hard to think they might have learned their lesson.

JP: Some people might question how an ordinary layman such as myself can contradict the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences.

CH: Really? Do you think people will look askance at someone whose objections to well accepted science looks like nothing more than religious crankery?

JP: I am sure that a few hundred years ago, someone could likewise have asked how an ordinary Jew could question the resurrection of Jesus, which was accepted as unquestionable fact by all Western scholars and professors at that time.

CH: Snicker. A few hundred years ago we didn't have indoor plumbing, and I would have joined you in your opposition to belief in resurrection as being no more worthy of belief than reincarnation.

JP: In conclusion, evolution has no basis in science.

CH: How exactly do you reach such a conclusion? You just pointed out how all scientists believe in evolution, and how even churches and the Pope are confirming it as scientific truth! Now suddenly, it isn't science? You'd be better off trying to argue that it isn't 'true' than that it isn't 'science'.

JP: It certainly has no relationship to exact laboratory sciences such as chemistry, biology and physics.

CH: I refer you to the Dobzhansky quotation again (especially relevant given you put biology in your list). Also worth noting that Dobzhansky was one of the first guys to get speciation in fruit flies to occur in the lab - back in the 1950's!

No Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for a contribution to evolutionary theory.

CH: False. Google 'genetics + Nobel prize' and you'll find that there are several instances of the Nobel prize being awarded to people whose science supports evolution. Keep in mind that the science of Genetics is derived from and validates evolutionary theory.

JP: No new technology or cure is based on the theory of evolution.

CH: I guess you have never had anti-biotics to treat an infection.

JP: While having great philosophical, theological and political importance,

CH: Hurray! We agree!

JP: ....it has no relevance to science.

CH: Laughable. Evolution is a scientific theory, and is validated by the scientific method - it is not a philosophical position, it is not a world view, it is not a political statement, and it is not a belief system - but it is science.

JP: It has been called a universal acid which destroys tradition.

CH: Indeed, I believe this is true, as much for how it destroys Cartesian dualism in epistemology as for how it discredits the infantile beliefs of creationists.

JP: It was one of the primary causes of the Second World War.

CH: And here I thought it was German imperialism brought on by the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles!

JP: It might be compared to Marxism, which was also not a science, but instead was a fiction based upon a desire to rob the wealthy. Perhaps not by coincidence, Christopher Hitchens, a great promoter of evolution, is also a former Marxist.

CH: So Hitchens is an atheist and also NOT A MARXIST. Doesn't that indicate to you that maybe the two things are not directly related and that people can be Marxists and not be atheists and vice versa?

JP: Evolution means the gradual development of all life on earth from one universal common ancestor through a process of variation and natural selection.

CH: Correct. [Thank you.]

JP: Evolution proposes that vast amounts of seemingly purposeful complexity can be generated through a random chance process, provided that a great deal of time and space are available and some external selective force limits this random process.

CH: More or less correct. The process though is not purely 'a random chance' process. It is directed by survivability in the environment. [It is a random chance process directed by nothing but merely limited by the requirement that the only existing organisms are the ones capable of reproducing. This is analogous to the publisher in my example who will print more of whatever may sell, however the customers are not directing him in how to arrange his letters. They are merely limiting him by not purchasing anything illegible.]

JP: Needless to say, such a process is unimaginably unlikely to be successful.

CH: On the contrary. It is not just imaginable, it is demonstrable both in the lab and in the field.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So despite the fact you think the process is somehow too incredible to be real (yet an other variation on the fallacious argument from personal incredulity) we have real world examples that demonstrate its truth.

[To disprove my critique, you would have to publish a few books using my pseudo-evolutionary method. Let me know if you succeed anytime in the next trillion years. Later than that, leave a message on my machine.]

JP: An evolutionist may answer, “True, the chance of life emerging spontaneously is infinitesimally small, however to say that some intelligent designer created life makes the problem even worse, since in that case you must explain how the intelligent designer somehow emerged spontaneously.”

I would respond “Wrong. God is a transcendent being. He exists outside of time and space and His nature is incomprehensible to mere humans. He requires no designer because He has always existed.”

CH: You could also say that Tralfamadorians, or that Yagroth the Sranchammer, or Cthullu are responsible with equal certainty.

You don't make your case more believable by invoking hypothetical transcendental beings as your solution to the problem you raise.

This is the precise case where Occam's razor is required to trim away the nonsense you bring to the table; "Though shalt not invoke unecessary entities".

We have an explanation that is testable and demonstrable by natural processes on one hand, and we have a miraculous process that requires a series of divine interventions by a hypothetical entity with hypothetical creation abilities that operate by processes and methods beyond our understanding on the other.

Gosh, which would the more believable explanation be, I wonder? [It’s a choice between accepting belief in something clearly impossible or believing in God. I’ll accept God.]

CH: Do you believe in all non-physical things? Ghosts? Shades? Leprechauns? Vampires? UFO abductions? That every rock, tree, stream, etc. all have their own unique spirits? The great Raven God? How do you pick and choose which invisible non-physical immaterial things you are going to believe in? How do you adjudicate the effects of your favourite invisible super-beings and those of someone else?

[When vampires and raven gods appear to a few million people like God appeared to the Jews at Mount Sinai, I look into them.]

JP: So ultimately, evolution rests merely on the atheistic personal belief of evolutionists and nothing more.

CH: Not at all. The evidence for evolution as a natural process is widely accepted around the world. The presence of invisible super-beings who enact special creation events and falsify fossil records to make evolution look true is something only a small number of deluded conspiracy theorists engage in. [Probably more people believe in God than in evolution.]

JP: Atheists seem to choose this belief because it allows them greater sexual freedom.

CH: Few sentences could be more idiotic. Atheism is not a 'belief system', it is a simple philosophical position. You can be a Communist atheist (Mao), a Marxist atheist (Marx), a nihilist atheist (Nietzsche), a secular humanist atheist (Asimov, Hoffstadter, me, others), a reformed socialist turned liberal-hawk atheist (Hitchens), a pro-capitalist atheist (Rand), a libertarian atheist (most of the people at Reason magazine), a Jewish skeptic (Spinoza) or even Christian agnostics (Kierkegaard).

All of the above would share the simple premise that belief in God is not supported by evidence.

(That said, Kierkegaard suggests we should believe in her anyway for other reasons).

Nor do we ditch supernatural beings from our world view out of a sense that this will increase our sexual freedom! We ditch them because they are incoherent, irrational, and mistaken. [So why are the vast majority of atheists male, if it’s not because men have a high sex drive and therefore atheism appeals to them more strongly?]

As for restrictive sexual practices being a downside to religion - I guess if the shoe fits...

I'd paraphrase him a little in this case and suggest "Nothing in the fossil record makes sense except in the light of evolution"[And why don’t we all become Catholic because the Pope said nothing makes sense without Jesus?]

JP: Over the past 200 years, paleontologists have very carefully examined the fossil record. If evolution were true, then we should see evidence of billions of intermediary stages between the earliest life and each of today’s living species, along with countless examples of failed organisms that could not reproduce.

CH: False. The suggestion that we should see 'billions of intermediary stages' is the major error. Nature and the Earth don't go out of their way to preserve every member of every species when they die to fulfill your intellectual requirement for believing in evolution.

A bog here, a dry riverbed there, a frozen mammoth elsewhere and that's it, and we make do.

Indeed, the fossil record does nothing but support evolutionary theory. In the case of human evolution we can see how the skeletons of human ancestors show more and more ape-like features as we go back into the past. The major family traits of mammals, amphibians, birds, etc. are also only coherently explainable with evolution, and are once again confirmed by the fossil record and genetics.

[At least the fossil record of marine life should be fairly complete, since so much is preserved in sediment. And digging up two or three very old, oddly shaped ape skulls and claiming that this proves we evolved from apes doesn’t really convince anyone of evolution who is not already a believer.]

JP: What we find instead are distinct eras populated with fully developed ecosystems: the Paleozoic Era, the Mesozoic Era and the Cenozoic Era, each of which seems to appear and disappear abruptly. This clearly falsifies evolution.

CH: If by 'abruptly' you mean 'over millions of years', and if by 'falsifies' you actually mean 'provides confirming evidence for'.

[“Abrupt” means as “we can’t tell exactly how fast, but it was certainly much faster than evolutionists would like” and “falsifies” means “proves false”.]

JP:It should be pointed out that animal breeding only works within narrow limits. Therefore it has no connection to evolution.

CH: Animal breeding is just an example of how evolution can work relatively quickly to produce a wide range of genetic variation. What are these 'narrow limits' you think exist? [For example, dogs can be bred to be Chihuahuas or Great Danes, but not bats, goats or dolphins.]

JP: Also, the fact that there are similarities between different animals does not prove a genetic relationship any more than similarities between different man made machines proves a genetic relationship.

CH: Granted, but a similar genetic relationship does prove a genetic relationship - and genetics verifies evolution! [That sounds like circular logic – things are related if they are related. I don’t see your point.]

JP: Allegedly vestigial organs really are not.

CH: Oh? Found a purposeful use for your wisdom teeth did you? [Yes. I chew with them. Click here for more details.]

JP: "Poorly designed" animals are really just poorly understood.

CH: Right, so the fact that all cats (which certainly appear to be related) share the same genetic corruption that prevents them from tasting sugar, and that this poor design is really just a poor understanding, and that all cats aren't really related to each other but are instead the produce of a series of miraculous events that just happens to make them look alike and share the same genetic defect.

Oh yeah, your building an ironclad case all-right.

JP: Bear in mind also that evolutionists will not hesitate to use fraudulent misinformation to promote their beliefs.

CH: Exactly. All my critics are liars. I blame the hostile main-stream media. Pay no attention to the man behind curtain.

JP: They also consider anyone who rejects Darwinism to be by definition an incompetent scientist, thereby in effect silencing any dissent within the scientific community.

CH: Yeah, just like they drummed out all the flat-earthers, astrologers and alchemists. Who do these scientists think they are dictating what is science and what isn't!

JP: Most scientists are evolutionists although evolution is obviously false.

CH: Cognitive dissonance here we come! This is going to be good as JP tries to explain why all the best minds of the world involved with science are actually the brainwashed drones of atheist orthodoxy - buckle up!

JP: The reason for this is because many atheists choose a career in science since people who believe that only the physical exists are often very curious about the physical world.

CH: So people who become scientists are interested and curious in how the physical world actually works. Got it. This makes sense as you (a non-scientist) are clearly either uninterested or confused in how the physical world actually works.

[Actually, I would probably have pursued a career in science had I remained an atheist as I was at age 13. And Einstein probably would have become a rabbi if he had continued to have an interest in religion as he did at about that age.]

JP: And a belief in evolution is almost inevitable if one is an atheist.

CH: Tell that to the former Soviet scientists who were forced/encouraged to produce only papers defending 'Lysenkoism' - an easily discredited theory that endured only because it conformed to Soviet-Marxist theories. One of the reason Soviet scientists envied the West is that our science was free to follow the results and evidence without ideological interference!

JP: "Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (“The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins page 6). Therefore a great many scientists believe in evolution.

CH: An excellent book by the way, but I think it's a stretch to suggest that Darwin's theory is what gives atheism its intellectual power. Just as atheists don't have to believe in evolution (like say the Jainists who have some whacky beliefs about creation) people who believe in evolution don't have to be atheists (see Francis Collins). I get tired of pointing this out, but atheism and evolution ARE NOT RELATED.

JP: Many people who are devoutly religious also accept evolution. This includes members of the Roman Catholic Church and modern Orthodox Judaism. I believe that this has happened because of the popular perception, promoted by many scientists, that evolution has been “proven by science” and therefore it is unquestionably true.

CH: It has been proven by science, and it is unquestionably true. Go figure.

[It entirely contradicts science and is unquestionably false.]

JP: I would describe such individuals as “Useful Idiots”, in other words naive people cynically being used by atheists for their own selfish purposes.

CH: I see them as the smart ones. Afterall, evolution simply is true - so why make the falsity of ones religion obvious by putting it in a position of contradicting what all science claims is basic fact? The Catholics made this mistake before with geo-centrism and Galileo, and it isn't hard to think they might have learned their lesson.

[Sure evolution is “simply true”. It makes no sense and all physical evidence proves it false, however if your brain is poisoned with testosterone it’s “simply true”.]

JP: Some people might question how an ordinary layman such as myself can contradict the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences.

CH: Really? Do you think people will look askance at someone whose objections to well accepted science looks like nothing more than religious crankery?

JP: I am sure that a few hundred years ago, someone could likewise have asked how an ordinary Jew could question the resurrection of Jesus, which was accepted as unquestionable fact by all Western scholars and professors at that time.

CH: Snicker. A few hundred years ago we didn't have indoor plumbing, and I would have joined you in your opposition to belief in resurrection as being no more worthy of belief than reincarnation.

[Were your ancestors Jews, Cameron? So what makes you think you would not have agreed with whatever silly nonsense was popular then just as you do now?]

JP: In conclusion, evolution has no basis in science.

CH: How exactly do you reach such a conclusion? You just pointed out how all scientists believe in evolution, and how even churches and the Pope are confirming it as scientific truth! Now suddenly, it isn't science? You'd be better off trying to argue that it isn't 'true' than that it isn't 'science'.

[If you would have had an interview with Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, what would they have told you about the Virgin Birth? Wouldn’t they have sworn that it was absolute historical fact? So how you can deny “science”? Why aren’t you a fundamentalist Christian? Because Christianity is not science, not matter how many scientists may have embraced it. Same with evolution.]

JP: It certainly has no relationship to exact laboratory sciences such as chemistry, biology and physics.

CH: I refer you to the Dobzhansky quotation again (especially relevant given you put biology in your list). Also worth noting that Dobzhansky was one of the first guys to get speciation in fruit flies to occur in the lab - back in the 1950's!

No Nobel Prize has ever been awarded for a contribution to evolutionary theory.

CH: False. Google 'genetics + Nobel prize' and you'll find that there are several instances of the Nobel prize being awarded to people whose science supports evolution. Keep in mind that the science of Genetics is derived from and validates evolutionary theory.[Genetics means “The branch of biology that deals with heredity, especially the mechanisms of hereditary transmission and the variation of inherited characteristics among similar or related organisms.” Evolution as I define it in this post means “The gradual development of all life on earth from one universal common ancestor through a process of variation and natural selection.” In other words, genetics is the study of how we have inherited certain characteristics from our ancestors. Evolution is the belief that we are all descended from bacteria. These two concepts both have something to do with ancestry, but that’s the only connection I can see.]

JP: No new technology or cure is based on the theory of evolution.

CH: I guess you have never had anti-biotics to treat an infection. [Antibiotics kill bacteria. Antibiotics don’t prove we are descended from bacteria. Two different ideas.]

JP: While having great philosophical, theological and political importance,

CH: Hurray! We agree!

JP: ....it has no relevance to science.

CH: Laughable. Evolution is a scientific theory, and is validated by the scientific method - it is not a philosophical position, it is not a world view, it is not a political statement, and it is not a belief system - but it is science.

[You are sad, Cameron, not laughable. And frightening. Evolution is a dangerous fantasy caused basically by testosterone.]

JP: It has been called a universal acid which destroys tradition.

CH: Indeed, I believe this is true, as much for how it destroys Cartesian dualism in epistemology as for how it discredits the infantile beliefs of creationists.

JP: It was one of the primary causes of the Second World War.

CH: And here I thought it was German imperialism brought on by the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles!

[Then I am happy to teach you something new. It was also caused by a belief that Nordic people are superior therefore, according to evolution, scientifically, they must exploit everyone else. Germans were big fans of this idea – after all it was science! – until Russian boots marched into Berlin in 1945 proving that maybe someone else was superior. Suddenly, Germans all became big anti-Nazis and pacifists. All the “science” went out the window.]

JP: It might be compared to Marxism, which was also not a science, but instead was a fiction based upon a desire to rob the wealthy. Perhaps not by coincidence, Christopher Hitchens, a great promoter of evolution, is also a former Marxist.

CH: So Hitchens is an atheist and also NOT A MARXIST. Doesn't that indicate to you that maybe the two things are not directly related and that people can be Marxists and not be atheists and vice versa?

I am a dolt and for some reason don't get it.Please explain to me again, how a hidden, transcendental and just being explains what we see in the world now. Forget about the remote past for a moment, since we can never know about that for sure.

Using reason and logic I need to understand the justification for assuming:

1. The existence of such a being.2. That he is all powerful3. That he is as described in the Jewish Bible (and not as described by the Muslims, Christians or any other religion.)

Using reason and logic alone, please explain to me how such a God explains the present world.

Without God, meaning the Jewish God YHVH, there could not be:- a universe- laws of nature fine tuned to permit life- life- Judaism

Or, to put it another way, the Jewish God explains the Big Bang, the laws of nature, the origin of life and the origin of Judaism including the unique Jewish origin traditions and the unique Jewish beliefs and history.

Now reason and logic tells me 2 things:1. That the Jewish God explains the things you mentioned, is but one of several possible explanations, which include other gods, evolution and cosmology. 2. More troubling is that the Jewish God, while possibly explaining the things you mentioned, does not explain and in fact contradicts other things that we see and that you didn't mention, including but not limited to:

a. massive and unexplained suffering in the world both Jewish and non-Jewish.b. The Jewish God of the bible evidently could not foresee the changes in the world that would make many if not most of His Laws irrelavant.c. The absence of divine intervention in the form of supernatural miracles. d. The absence of non-Jewish acknowledgement or confirmation of the unique Jewish God. (One would think, based on the bible, that the one true all powerful god would be revealed to all peoples of the world, not just to Jews)

So what you are saying is that the Torah/Jewish God offers an explanation, and however incomplete and contradictory, you are willing to accept that.

My sense of reason does not allow me to accept it. Similarly I reject other gods. On the other hand, reason tells me that the scientific explanations, while incomplete, do not contradict what I observe, so I am tentatively will to accept them, until a better alternative comes along.

This post explains why evolution is obviously false. Regarding "other gods" I'm not sure what you mean. That maybe it was really Zeus or Thor who appeared on Mount Sinai and impersonated YHVH? That seems unlikely to me.

According to the Torah, every sin is punished and the punishment is always big. In a sinful world, massive suffering is exactly what we would expect to see and we do. Although, I wouldn't overdo this. How many hours of his life does the average person experience actual, intense, physical pain? I suspect not many.

There is no rule that the Torah must always be practically applicable or ever be practically applicable. Some laws may exist merely to teach us a moral lesson. See for example the Talmud Sanhedrin 71a "There never has been a 'stubborn and rebellious son' and never will be. There never was a 'condemned city', and never will be. There never was a leprous house [to need destruction], and never will be."

There are miracles even in our time - for example the Holocaust. What you may be asking is "Why aren't there today miracles so obvious that even I could not deny them?" and answer may be "You could deny anything."

God revealed His Torah to the only nation willing to accept it. Other nations have accepted bits and pieces according their own free will. Many gentiles have in fact converted to Judaism.

Regarding the scientific explanations for the universe, etc., I think you mean atheistic explanations. Beyond evolution, there really don't seem to be any, and this post demonstrates that evolution is false.

By "other gods" I mean other people's and religion's description of God and his nature. Maybe the Muslim's Allah is the true god? Or the Christian's Jesus? Do their god theories explain the present world any better or were than our yhvh?

The holocaust was not a miracle. It was the heinous act of man. A miracle is a supernatural intervention by god.

Why would a diety give commandments that are not applicable? This makes no sense.

Why would a diety "make" a sinful world so he could eternally punish it? This sounds sadistic, and not worthy of a moral person's belief.

You're forgetting that Jews are 0.01% of the world's population of humans. What's god have against the millions who die of disease, starvation, and natural disasters?

To say that god kills babies because of the "sins" of adults is not a reasonable explanation. If you then say, "god says so", you are accepting DOGMA-- a theory of the world that is contrary to reason and logic.

It is much more reasonable to say that sh-t just happens. Just as a leaf falls so does an earthquake occur. It is not reasonable to say that god makes sh-t happen, for you are promoting a concept of an cruel, brutal and unpredictable god as an explanation for what we see. This cruel and unpredictable god runs contrary to the very ethics that you say that the torah promotes. So the good Jews have an evil god. How would we judge a human on this earth who behaved like the god you described? As a psychopath!

You are forced to resort to the afterlife arguments as a way of restoring justice. But this runs contrary to reason, too, since we now know that a person's consciousness lies in his physical brain. When a person has dementia or is in a coma, where is the soul then? Is it thinking and sane, while the physical person is a demented vegetable? There is no evidence of all of an afterlife, except as claimed by religionists who can't explain the injustices of the world otherwise.

Imagine a human emperor of the world, with god-like powers to control everything earthly and to give and take life at will. Now imagine that this flesh and blood ruler was responsible for the world as we know it now, with all of the good and bad that occured in the last century. You are now asked to rate this leader. You would have to say he is either:1. incompetent2. apathetic3. a psychopathic and megalomaniac serial murderer4. all of the above

Now the only difference between my scenario and yours is that mine is of a physical human entity and your is of a non-physical hidden one.

As far as my human ruler is concerned, I would fight to throw the bastard out and put him on trial!

Perhaps your proof for atheism could be called the "spoiled child argument" - since God doesn't do what I want, I refuse to believe in Him. This line of reasoning is familiar to any parent whose children, when asked to do something or told they cannot do something, run into another room, slam the door and scream "I hate you".

You didn't answer my question. What if a human ruler behaved like god? What would you think? What would reason tell you? Is the fact that you claim that god behaves this way immunize you from critical questions and reasoning? Or does it make you say that bad is really good? This is in fact what ancient kings did, who claimed that they were divine and thus exempt from criticism of their faults. Taking your analogy a bit further, if my parents actually behaved like god does I would run out and I would be right in doing so. I would also report them to the police for child abuse and negligence.

"I would say that other people's character is none of your business unless you are entering into a partnership with them. How is God's character relevant to me?"

If you willingly and knowingly, decide to honor, love, put your trust in, and obey him, then you ARE in a partnership with him, and I would say his character is relevant. The whole torah story is about a covenant, right? A brit?

drj, it sounds like you don't like God too much and I bet He doesn't like you either.

That being as it may, I think what you're basically trying to say is that a just God cannot exist since we see that the world includes much injustice and furthermore, justice must be fairly immediate and obvious since we have no soul, as proven by the fact that the state of the brain influences our cognitive abilities. Therefore there is no afterlife, no future incarnations, etc. where reward and punishment can be settled.

I would argue with the idea that the fact that brain has an influence on thought proves that there is no soul. For example, if I hit my computer with a hammer, I will lose my Internet connection. Does this prove that the Internet exists only inside my computer? I am merely accessing the Internet through my computer. When I hit the computer with the hammer, I am losing the access. By the same token, the body accesses the soul via the brain. If you hit the brain with a hammer, the body loses that access.

This is not a new idea. See the 16th century Shulchan Oruch Orach Chaim 25:5 "one should subjugate to Him our soul that resides in the brain".

Except that it does not quite work that way, does it? Yes, brain surgery can lead to all sorts of abnormal behavior. People's personalities change. Their responses to stimuli change. Their character changes. Sometimes people become docile, sometimes violent. Alcohol alters brain function in all sorts of funny ways. Drugs change behavior in many interesting ways.

All the things that we expect from a brain that initiates behavior we get.

So where does the soul fit in all this? Nowhere.

If I were a smart alek and said that in between a brain and soul there is something else, called "schmol", such that the schmol processes the godly behavior of man , and if I said that the schmol too , like the soul, is subjugated to the brain, how would anyone go about disproving me?

Making changes to my computer can change how fast webpages load, whether you can see the pictures or video clips, how large or small the webpages appear to be. So where does the "Internet" come in? Maybe it's all just on my computer? And when I turn off the computer, poof, the "Internet" is gone.

"drj, it sounds like you don't like God too much and I bet He doesn't like you either."

Actually, if he is out there he has blessed me with pretty good health, a nice family, a good career and great friends. So what am I kvetching about? I would argue that my morality and reason would make me protest at the injustice in the world, particularly if there was somebody all-powerful controlling it. (No I'm not a flaming liberal!!)

You can't really take your computer-internet analogy too far, for the internet continues to exist because millions of other computers continue to physically exist. If they didn't, there would indeed be no internet. With the brain-soul, a better analogy would be brain-community connection, and the person's memory continues within other people, and the community goes on. But what is left of the soul? As BadRabbi says, where's the shmol?

Where is the soul when the person is a newborn baby? Is it thinking, reasoning, feeling? The baby possesses only the most basic sensations and reflexes. Is this the soul? Or does it develop only when the brain develops? Never mind where it was before one is born or conceived.

IMHO, when a person dies, he no longer exists, just as he didn't exist before he was born. No pain. Just nothing. Its kind of sad, but I think its the truth. Yes, his memory lives on, through other people and the impact he had on their lives.

Maybe it is superficially comforting to think that death isn't final, but when you think about billions of eternal, bodiless, powerless spirits just floating around looking at the world, that doesn't sound too exciting either.

The soul is a term to describe a person's spiritual nature-- his connection to others, his awareness of the universe, etc, but not necessarily god.

First of all, let me point out that just because something makes us feel good doesn't mean it's not real. Granola makes me feel good and it's real.

About evidence for and against the soul, I don't think the fact that sometimes people are unconscious and afterwards cannot remember what they were thinking and doing at that time proves there is no soul. It just proves that sometimes we cannot remember certain things. Do you remember being in your mother's womb? So that proves you weren't there? I don't think so.

I would argue that our self consciousness proves the existence of a spiritual component. Do machines experience self awareness or have free will or think they have free will? Probably not. Because they have no soul.

"I would argue that our self consciousness proves the existence of a spiritual component. Do machines experience self awareness or have free will or think they have free will? Probably not. Because they have no soul."

What about your pet dog or cat? Anybody who has ever interacted with one knows there's "somebody" in there, and its not just a series of reflexes that make it wag its tale, grimace or purr. They certainly seem to be self aware, although not to the same degree as us.

How do you know your wife has a soul? Because you see how she behaves and you project your own knowledge of this self-awareness onto her. (Its called "empathy")

The puzzle of self-consciousness, the mind and the brain is indeed complicated and not fully understood from a biological view. You can read Steve Pinker for starters.

With regards to evidence for the soul, when arguing reason and logic, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate something's existence, not on me to prove that it doesn't. (although my previous comments show the problems, they certainly cannot prove that it doesn't exist, similar to trying to disprove Russell's teapot)

Animals have a soul "Who knoweth the spirit of man whether it goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast whether it goeth downward to the earth?" Ecclesiastes Chapter 3:21

The burden of proof is on you.

As I understand it, you are trying to prove that God doesn't exist, since there is no soul, there is no afterlife, and since there is no afterlife, there is no justice, so since there is no justice there is no God.

So if you can't prove there is no soul your argument falls apart.

I could claim on the contrary - there must be a soul because there must be an afterlife where justice is finally meted out.

"I could claim on the contrary - there must be a soul because there must be an afterlife where justice is finally meted out."

We call that wishful thinking.

You bring Ecclesiastes as "proof"? First of all the verse only proves that the writer THOUGHT there is a soul, not that it actually exists.

Secondly it is circular logic--you can't use biblical verses when using logic or reason, because the authority of these verses rests entirely on the assumption of the existence God! Its like saying the torah is true because the torah itself says so.

So the burden of proof (not that you owe me anything, just if we're having a reason-based argument) is on you. Rusell's teapot! Flying spaghetti!!

"As I understand it, you are trying to prove that God doesn't exist, since there is no soul, there is no afterlife, and since there is no afterlife, there is no justice, so since there is no justice there is no God."

That pretty much summarizes it!

Religionists had to resort to the soul and afterlife to make sense of the utter disorder of god's world. Its the only thing that prevents religion and god from being completely discredited.

Where do you think the burden of proof is? You're making a claim of the existence of an entity that has no mass, no measurable force, not preceptible in any objective or consistent way-- thus not disprovable!! Brilliant!! It even harder to disprove than god, for at least we make claims about the behavior of God. Of the soul we know nothing, but just claim that it exists. Now that's belief!

We can then ask “Where is justice?” and we can answer “There must be an eternal soul and an afterlife.”

This is surely no different than a scientist who deduces that since the universe is expanding at an accelerating speed, dark energy must exist.

You’re turning around and saying “But wait! There is no soul!” How do you know? Because you don’t see it on your MRI? Because when you wake up in the morning you can’t remember what your soul was doing while you slept? I’m not sure those are bullet proof arguments.

Jewish history does not prove god exists and that he wrote the Torah any more than Islamic or Buddhist history proves their claims.

With regards to dark energy-- even though it may not be directly observable, it is testable indirectly, unlike the soul theory, which is completely unverifiable or untestable, and cannot be refuted either because of its nebulous definition.

You keep on throwing the burden of proof back at me, but its not working. It's you who has to say "wait, there has to be a soul for all of this to make sense" when you apriori make your definition of a soul such that it can't be tested. Just like Avi's Shmol, FSH ,etc.

DrJ, about the watchmaker principle "Potential falsification: Present one example of a machine which we have witnessed come into existence spontaneously, without any intelligent designer."

About Judaism "Potential falsification: Present one example of a successful conspiracy of 10,000 people who knowingly all told the same lie, which was later somehow discovered to be a lie. [Bear in mind that falsifying the Anti-Conspiracy Principle brings into question the truthfulness of the Holocaust, the moon landings and many other events as well, not only the Exodus tradition.]"

I'm waiting eagerly.

The soul is testable indirectly. We know there is a God. We know there is divine justice. We know some criminals escape justice in this world. Therefore there must be an after life where justice is meted out.

You are simply restating old and discredited "proofs" of God and Judaism.

Millions of Muslims believe to the depth of their souls that Jews perpetrated 9/11, so what? There's no such thing as the "anti-conspiracy principle". Of all of the thousands of false beliefs that ever existed, you're taking one particular story, of revelation, and saying that it couldn't be false because how could people have believed such a silly thing unless it really happened. This shows a tremendous naivete about history on your part. Its about the origin of all religions.

The watchmaker in my opinion is the flying spaghetti machine. He was recently revealed and his prophets told me so. Prove me wrong.

"The soul is testable indirectly. We know there is a God. We know there is divine justice. We know some criminals escape justice in this world. Therefore there must be an after life where justice is meted out."

Poor logic:1. Thats not a test. Whats the possibility of proving or disproving? that's what testable means.2. In a logical argument you make precedent assumptions. You can hypothesize, "assume there is a god, then there must be an afterlife". Then you can go check to see whether or not there is an afterlife. 3. What kind of justice can be meted out to Hitler in an afterlife?

The fact that YOU believe what you believe, based on an ancient text and a tradition, but without actual objective proof, is itself a negation of your "anti-conspiracy principle". This has been going on for thousands of years in all religions, and the fact that the religion itself claims that a crowd witnessed a storm on a mountain makes not one iota of difference to the credibility of the claim. Thousands of people claim to experience Jesus every day, so what?

Of the holocaust and moon landing there is objective proof and documentary evidence from multiple sources that is not disputed other than by a few psychopaths. If you put these things into the same evidenticiary category as the revelation, where not talking reason.

The watchmaker analogy is invalid and requires no falsification, as it compares two things (a man made machine, and the natural world) which are not comparable in any way. To require that I come up with a machine with no maker is fallacious reasoning, since the analogy requires YOU to show that the two sides of the analogy are the same.

I’m sorry DrJ, I fail to see any fundamental difference between Holocaust Denial and Torah Denial; both events are based on numerous witnesses, written documentation and oral tradition. Both would require huge and impractical conspiracies to falsify. Nor do I see any fundamental difference between, say, a man made camera and the human eye; both exhibit complexity and purposefulness.

I, Cameron, DrJ, Spike (where is he, we miss him?) carefully have dissected your claims of Evolution, and point by point attempted to explain Evolution's assertions and predictions. We have at length tried to point out the short comings of a 'theory' of creation, why it can not be considered science, and what its problems are.

Your response? "Evolution is obviously false"!

Obviously false? Despite the fact that the greatest minds in this century accept it, despite the fact the vast majority of scientists have studied every aspects of Evolution theory and accept it, despite the fact that I and others in this blog gave you countless logical arguments that Evolution is a plausible theory, you persist on saying it is 'obviously' false. A reasonable person, even while clutching to his creationist ideas, would have at least conceded that Evolution theory is not 'obviously' wrong.

If we can not show you that evolution is at least not 'obviously' false, then we have indeed failed.

Now the question is the following: Despite the mountain of evidence that is available out there, and despite the significant evidence that we personally have shown you, you persist on saying the same thing over and over. What then can be wrong?

The answer, alas, is painfully obvious. Your mind, JP, is closed.

No amount of sensible argumentation would convince you otherwise. No amount of evidence would sway you from your position. What we are fighting against is faith and faith by definition is not logical.

JP makes a good observation here. Indeed through the ages the Jews have persisted in their faith despite the onslaught of calamaties and challenges from other religions.

However, as we can see from the state of world Jewry today (and other religions as well) that it has not weathered the onslaught of enlightenment, reason and science. Fortunately for us, few Jews maintain the irrational and illogical beliefs of JP. Unfortunately for us, alot of Muslims have kept their beliefs which have been a force of backwardness in the world.

Evolution is a curious thing, that it would create a JP, that could believe that Torah denial is the same as holocaust denial (despite that most humans on this earth don't deny the holocaust but do deny the Torah).

JP, your failure to see the difference between the two can only be described as either a. a logical glitch in your thought, b. you being disingenuious, or c. both.

To point out that a Jewish idea is false is not the same a being a antisemite. That is an absurd proposition.

For the record, I am a Jew, and proud of it. If Hitler were be resurrected and brought to the USA, I would fight him to the bitter end and would not deny my Judaism to escape the death chamber.

But that the same time, I am tired of our opponents trying to shut us up on the charge of antisemitism. Every time we say something they don't like, they lobe this charge. Careless accusations serve only to cheapen the veracity of the accuser - like the shepherd boy who kept crying wolf, no one will come to the boy's aid were the real wolf loosed.

That said, Judaism is and aught to be resilient. Some of its ideas are beautiful, some nakedly ugly. It is up to us as Jews to 'evolve' the religion in positive directions.

Some years ago, I read that some ultra orthodox Jews had the practice of having the mohel sucking the blood of a circumcised penis with his mouth. 8 day old boys who were just circumcised had their penises sucked by the Mohel in some bizzare ritual. Evidently 8 children had died of herpes infections as a result of this practice.

The state of NY eventually banned this practice, but I hear that it still goes on behind closed doors.

Well, I deplore this horrible act. It has no basis in the Torah, and even if it did, I deplore it! Does that make an antisemite?

The penis sucking is an ancient practice and it is still done quite a bit. It is done for the some reason that torahs, tefillin and mezuzahs have to be written on parchment by scribes: because back in biblical times that's all there was. All important documents that had to be durable were written on parchment. There's nothing inherently "holy" about it-- if they had been writing then on laminated paper using computers or using rubber stampers, that's what we'd be commanded to use now. Same thing with penis sucking-- to draw the blood out- before they had pipettes.

The same with shechita, tvillah, and many other mitzvot.

Basically, Judaism, like all cultures, is the accumulated knowledge, "wisdom", and customs of a people over thousands of years. While it would be stupid for every generation to "start over" and ignore ancient wisdom, obviously we should be able to discard the garbage from the past. The difficulty is in deciding what to keep and what to throw away.

BadRabbi, maybe we should just leave JP alone in his faith, since I assume that he is harmless. Or is he???

DrJ, the rabbinical Jewish population has historically always been about one or two million since ancient times and we are getting back up to about that level. And there has never been a shortage of traitors and apostates.

About the circumcision problem, probably more babies die from being kissed by their grandmothers. That can be fatal too.

How could the ancestor be 60,000,000 years younger than the descendent? It can't be a definite transitional species if the dates are off. Again, every time they find a possible transitional species, there are problems. And there are modern lizards with similar legs that are not considered transitional. And there are modern snakes that have small hind legs they use in mating rituals. So what exactly happened? First the proto-snake lost its hind legs, then the fore-limbs became reduced, then they disappeared, then the snake re-evolved the hind limbs? See, again problems.

JP: Cameron, I am so glad to have you back. My responses are in brackets.

CH: Good to be back.

CH: On the contrary. It is not just imaginable, it is demonstrable both in the lab and in the field.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

So despite the fact you think the process is somehow too incredible to be real (yet an other variation on the fallacious argument from personal incredulity) we have real world examples that demonstrate its truth.

JP: [To disprove my critique, you would have to publish a few books using my pseudo-evolutionary method. Let me know if you succeed anytime in the next trillion years. Later than that, leave a message on my machine.]

CH: We have demonstrations of speciation in both the lab and the wild - situations where the daughter species no longer breeds with its parent species and becomes genetically isolated. This is evidence of evolution in action and no thought experiment involving publishers will make it go away.

JP: An evolutionist may answer, “True, the chance of life emerging spontaneously is infinitesimally small, however to say that some intelligent designer created life makes the problem even worse, since in that case you must explain how the intelligent designer somehow emerged spontaneously.”

I would respond “Wrong. God is a transcendent being. He exists outside of time and space and His nature is incomprehensible to mere humans. He requires no designer because He has always existed.”

CH: We have an explanation that is testable and demonstrable by natural processes on one hand, and we have a miraculous process that requires a series of divine interventions by a hypothetical entity with hypothetical creation abilities that operate by processes and methods beyond our understanding on the other.

CH: Except that isn't the choice. Evolution isn't impossible, at best all you can suggest is that it might be improbable. And no matter how improbable something is it is always more likley than something impossible (like immaterial transcendent beings).

CH: Do you believe in all non-physical things? Ghosts? Shades? Leprechauns? Vampires? UFO abductions? That every rock, tree, stream, etc. all have their own unique spirits? The great Raven God? How do you pick and choose which invisible non-physical immaterial things you are going to believe in? How do you adjudicate the effects of your favourite invisible super-beings and those of someone else?

[When vampires and raven gods appear to a few million people like God appeared to the Jews at Mount Sinai, I look into them.]

CH: There is no evidence (only anecdote) for there being 'millions' who witness the Mt Sinai revelation. Indeed, far more likely a deception occurred - if any actual event took place at all. No reason to think the entire story isn't fiction. Also, it is highly unlikely that Jews ever numbered in the millions till more modern times.

I'd paraphrase him a little in this case and suggest "Nothing in the fossil record makes sense except in the light of evolution"

JP: [And why don’t we all become Catholic because the Pope said nothing makes sense without Jesus?]

CH: For the simple reason that scientists tasked with understanding the natural world have greater authority to posit what is true than any religious leader does.

CH: Indeed, the fossil record does nothing but support evolutionary theory. In the case of human evolution we can see how the skeletons of human ancestors show more and more ape-like features as we go back into the past. The major family traits of mammals, amphibians, birds, etc. are also only coherently explainable with evolution, and are once again confirmed by the fossil record and genetics.

JP: [At least the fossil record of marine life should be fairly complete, since so much is preserved in sediment.]

CH: Except of course that anything that dies in the ocean is likely to be eaten by those creatures that inhabit the ocean floor, if they aren't first consumed as the carcass floats on its way down. Further, we don't have access to the ocean floor in our search for fossils - since along with being contained within rocks, they are also buried under an ocean.

JP: [And digging up two or three very old, oddly shaped ape skulls and claiming that this proves we evolved from apes doesn’t really convince anyone of evolution who is not already a believer.]

CH: Yeah, because who is convinced by actual evidence when they can believe things that old guys with beards tell them!

Those skulls were predicted to exist by evolutionary theory, and when discovered displayed all the signs of being transitional forms between us and our ape-ancestors, getting increasingly ape-like as we go further and further into the past. I can see why you would be in denial about them.

JP: What we find instead are distinct eras populated with fully developed ecosystems: the Paleozoic Era, the Mesozoic Era and the Cenozoic Era, each of which seems to appear and disappear abruptly. This clearly falsifies evolution.

CH: If by 'abruptly' you mean 'over millions of years', and if by 'falsifies' you actually mean 'provides confirming evidence for'.

JP: [“Abrupt” means as “we can’t tell exactly how fast, but it was certainly much faster than evolutionists would like” and “falsifies” means “proves false”.]

CH: You have no reason to think that these changes occurred rapidly except that it fits into the pre-existing disposition you have to believe that evolution must be false because it contradicts your book.

There simply aren't any paleontologists who don't believe in evolution. Same with geneticists and most (if not all) biologists.

CH: Animal breeding is just an example of how evolution can work relatively quickly to produce a wide range of genetic variation. What are these 'narrow limits' you think exist?

JP: [For example, dogs can be bred to be Chihuahuas or Great Danes, but not bats, goats or dolphins.]

CH: The same process that changes wolves into chihuahuas is responsible for turning our ape-like ancestors into us. Further, I keep mentioning this because it is so important, we have direct evidence in the lab and wild of evolutionary speciation.

JP: Also, the fact that there are similarities between different animals does not prove a genetic relationship any more than similarities between different man made machines proves a genetic relationship.

CH: Granted, but a similar genetic relationship does prove a genetic relationship - and genetics verifies evolution!

JP: [That sounds like circular logic – things are related if they are related. I don’t see your point.]

CH: Then I will rephrase. Evolutionary theory until the last few decades used homologies as a way of tracking genetic relationships.

However, now we have genetic science to track these relationships! And genetics can confirm these relationships directly (provided we have actual DNA to work with).

For example, we know from having sequenced the genomes of both bears and dogs that they are relatively closely related - more so than either are to the Cats. Ditto for bears and the weasel family, raccoons, and some other species. Where once we could only look at the homologous structures to determine relationship now we can look directly at the genetic code and see how evolutionary relationships have adjusted over time.

Worth noting that in each and every case where an opportunity to verify evolutionary theory with genetics has arisen - it has done so.

JP: Bear in mind also that evolutionists will not hesitate to use fraudulent misinformation to promote their beliefs.

CH: Exactly. All my critics are liars. I blame the hostile main-stream media. Pay no attention to the man behind curtain.

JP: Many people who are devoutly religious also accept evolution. I believe that this has happened because of the popular perception, promoted by many scientists, that evolution has been “proven by science” and therefore it is unquestionably true.

CH: It has been proven by science, and it is unquestionably true. Go figure.

JP: [It entirely contradicts science and is unquestionably false.]

CH: This is what I mean by cognitive dissonance. Evolutionary theory is repeatedly demonstrated to be true - by scientists(!) and yet you suggest that it somehow contradicts science! In fact, the only thing it contradicts is your holy book - which as everyone and their dog keeps pointing out to you, is NOT a science text!

JP: [Sure evolution is “simply true”. It makes no sense and all physical evidence proves it false, however if your brain is poisoned with testosterone it’s “simply true”.]

CH: Evolution is simply true. It's a brute fact about the universe, that makes sense both of itself and of biology (see Dobzhansky quotation earlier) and as you yourself note has had a wide ranging impact on a variety of other scientific disciplines. The only people for whom the theory is not held to be true are religious objectors who feel their teeny tiny god might be threatened by the truth. Face it, your objections to evolution are no different in kind than the wingnuts who object to a round earth, those who believe the moon-landings were faked and the 9-11 truthers. Conspiracy nuts all.

JP: [Were your ancestors Jews, Cameron?]

CH: Somewhere back in the past, yes. More directly my grand parents (Dutch) harbored Jews in Holland during the holocaust and as such I have a set of Uncles and Aunts who are Jewish though not actually related to me.

JP: [So what makes you think you would not have agreed with whatever silly nonsense was popular then just as you do now?]

CH: Under different circumstsances things might be different. Of course, they might not - I might have been just as clear headed about religion then as now. Who is to say?

More to the point, I didn't come to atheism because it was popular! If anything it is typically a deeply unpopular opinion, if only because certain bigotry filled religions call for the murder of apostates and infidels. Which makes us the less popular choice, not to mention a little touchy.

JP: In conclusion, evolution has no basis in science.

CH: How exactly do you reach such a conclusion? You just pointed out how all scientists believe in evolution, and how even churches and the Pope are confirming it as scientific truth! Now suddenly, it isn't science? You'd be better off trying to argue that it isn't 'true' than that it isn't 'science'.

JP: [If you would have had an interview with Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, what would they have told you about the Virgin Birth?]

CH: Newton would have believed it, Galileo would likely have declined to answer, and Copernicus was once apointed a canon in the cathedral of Frauenberg and would have likely had a lively theological understanding of the virgin birth.

JP: Wouldn’t they have sworn that it was absolute historical fact?

CH: Newton would have, but I'm not sure that Copernicus wouldn't have declared it a matter of faith rather than a matter of fact. Galileo would have been agnostic on the matter.

JP: So how you can deny “science”?

CH: I don't! Science isn't merely just 'what scientists think'.

JP: Why aren’t you a fundamentalist Christian? Because Christianity is not science, not matter how many scientists may have embraced it. Same with evolution.

CH: Science isn't a set of beliefs, or an ideology it's a process which leads to results that can be repeated and falsified.

As such, the religious beliefs are not part of the scientific equation.

This is true by definition! Religious beliefs must be taken on faith - because if there were evidence for any of this religious crap it wouldn't be faith based and hence wouldn't be religious.

I deny the religious beliefs of Copernicus and Newton (and for that matter any that Galileo might have had) precisely because they don't hold up to the scrutiny science insists all facts and theories should.

JP: No new technology or cure is based on the theory of evolution.

CH: I guess you have never had anti-biotics to treat an infection.

JP:[Antibiotics kill bacteria. Antibiotics don’t prove we are descended from bacteria. Two different ideas.]

CH: An anti-biotic resistance that develops in bacteria is proof of evolution. Those bacteria that survive the anti-biotic reproduce and pass the immunity on to their off-spring creating anti-biotic resistant bacteria strains.

Further, all gene therapies are derived from principles of evolution.

JP: While having great philosophical, theological and political importance,

CH: Hurray! We agree!

JP: ....it has no relevance to science.

CH: Laughable. Evolution is a scientific theory, and is validated by the scientific method - it is not a philosophical position, it is not a world view, it is not a political statement, and it is not a belief system - but it is science.

[You are sad, Cameron, not laughable. And frightening. Evolution is a dangerous fantasy caused basically by testosterone.]

CH: Zero evidence of this. None.

JP: It was one of the primary causes of the Second World War.

CH: And here I thought it was German imperialism brought on by the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles!

JP: [Then I am happy to teach you something new.]

CH: By all means teach me of this new falsehood you speak of.

JP: It was also caused by a belief that Nordic people are superior

CH: Which I think we recognize today as 'racism' - something that is hardly the fault of evolutionary theory.

JP:... therefore, according to evolution, scientifically, they must exploit everyone else.

CH: Did some people who believe in evolution also have racist beliefs? Yes. But that is not the same as 'evolution caused the second world war'.

JP: Germans were big fans of this idea – after all it was science! – until Russian boots marched into Berlin in 1945 proving that maybe someone else was superior.

CH: Once again it is worth pointing out the following passage from Hitler's Mein Kampf;

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Which doesn't sound very Atheist to my ear.

But that could be just me quote mining right? It's just a single line taken from Mein Kampf, it could be unreflective of his real position. Right?

Then how about this;

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

"I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal."

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"I thank Heaven that a portion of the memories of those days still remains with me. Woods and meadows were the battlefields on which the 'conflicts' which exist everywhere in life were decided."

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"Only a handful of Germans in the Reich had the slightest conception of the eternal and merciless struggle for the German language, German schools, and a German way of life. Only today, when the same deplorable misery is forced on many millions of Germans from the Reich, who under foreign rule dream of their common fatherland and strive, amid their longing, at least to preserve their holy right to their mother tongue, do wider circles understand what it means to be forced to fight for one's nationality."

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

So far from an atheist movement out to exterminate Jews based on a deliberate corruption of Darwin, instead we have a Christian movement with its attendant distaste for its parent religion (because both can't be right), fused with racism and a tradition of German 'purity'.

But I expect that having evidence of Hitler's overt and self-declared religious beliefs will only drive you and natschuster to invent ever more incredible conspiracies to maintain the integrity of your own private historical narrative where atheists lie at the root of all your problems.

DR J: The penis sucking is an ancient practice and it is still done quite a bit.

CH: And here I thought the Mormons and Scientologists were f*cked up!

Curiously JP, you have advocated the stoning of homosexuals. I would have thought that would have been the case ESPECIALLY for men who suck on the penis of helpless little boys!

Since you seem to admit that publishing books using random chance and customer selection would not work, I guess you're admitting that evolution would not work either. Thank you.

Regarding Judaism and morality, don't you condone the murder of about 40 million fetuses per year so that people can enjoy sex whenever they want to? I see no reason to take the opinion of a filthy subhuman swine seriously. Nothing personal, Cam.

JP: Since you seem to admit that publishing books using random chance and customer selection would not work, I guess you're admitting that evolution would not work either. Thank you.

CH: What a train-wreck.

The fact that I didn't specifically address the weaknesses of a particular analogy directly cannot be taken as evidence of my agreeing to it!

You didn't respond to a fraction of my reply to your post on - should we conclude you agree with me about everything you didn't respond to?

JP: Regarding Judaism and morality, don't you condone the murder of about 40 million fetuses per year so that people can enjoy sex whenever they want to?

CH: I happen to share a version of the views of St Thomas Aquinas who felt that life begins 'at the quickening. Before then in his view the fetus had yet to be 'en-souled'.

My underlying logic for when the fetus reaches its threshold for humanity is slightly different than his, but we have the same conclusion. Once the fetus has completed the gross work on the nervous system - especially in terms of brain development, then it has met the criteria for humanity and for our protection.

I have no problem accepting a third trimester fetus as a full human being, and treating its death as a serious moral harm akin to murder.

But I also have no trouble seeing that a fetus without a nervous system or brain isn't in the most important sense human, and it's destruction isn't the moral equivalent of shooting a ten year old in the head.

To me there is a clear moral continuum from semen and egg to fertilized egg, to 16 cell blastocyst, through to the first time the fetus moves on its own volition.

If I am not mistaken it is a relatively new theological suggestion (just the last 50 years or so) that life begins at conception. This is true if for no other reason than prior to modern reproductive science accurately determining conception was all but impossible until the first movements of the fetus are detected.

For Aquinas this meant the fetus had received a soul, for me it means the fetus has a brain and a nervous system and has crossed the threshold from possibility to humanity.

So do I condone most abortion? No, but some of it (the earliest) I do - mostly on the grounds that if the fetus hasn't reached the 2nd trimester what a woman does with her body is none of my or anyone else's business.

And I don't condone it out of a desire for people to have non-consequential sex - though I am 100% in favour of reproduction free intercourse, that is not the grounds for why I would allow the termination of a pregnancy.

For me the woman has a right (and a moral duty) to care for her pregnancy. Should she decide that it is better to not be pregnant, my preference would be for her to reach that conclusion earlier rather than later and use a post coitus contraceptive like RU486 (the morning after pill) which prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg to the uterine wall.

Ideally, my personal preference would be for no abortions at all.

Ideally all pregnancies would be wanted - and the way to approach that ideal is to promote responsible contraception use especially among the young, and for those circumstances where that isn't sufficient a post coitus drug that works to terminate the pregnancy prior as early as possible.

JP: I see no reason to take the opinion of a filthy subhuman swine seriously. Nothing personal, Cam.

CH: It figures that like your logic your insults would be grade-school level and then followed by a contradictory statement.

Above, we witness absolute destruction of JP by CH. All JP can do is lash out with an infantile insult which boomerangs right back to JP.

Once again, a masterpiece of logic, Cam.

Regarding abortion, it seems to me that honorable people can have differing opinions about it. Some serious thinkers come to the conclusion that abortion is moral, so do not. Some, as Cameron did, conclude that a fetus is worthy of protection at second and third trimester. Even religious people, especially religious rabbis have differing opinions about abortion.

Perhaps I tire sometimes of the oh-so-self-righteous atheists who mock the Talmud for not being in full compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever is in fashion at the moment, but then turn around and do things a million times worse themselves, by redefining what is called a “person” or some other similar nonsense. If I’m not mistaken, very few abortions, perhaps 10%, are done before the fetus has developed significantly.

What didn’t I respond to? It’s so hard to pick through the drivel. Let’s see. “all gene therapies are derived from principles of evolution” This would surprise Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics, who was a creationist. In fact, no medical treatment is dependent on the theory of evolution, in the sense that it would not work if we were not descended from microbes. Because we aren’t.

Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

This is the Torah's attitude toward fetuses. Does this sound like the Torah thinks a fetus is a person?

Regarding abortion, a reality that religionists have a hard time accepting is that morality is relative.

No, not just for leftists.

Even traditional or religious societies, however much they resist change, eventually have to adapt to new circumstances if they are to survive, and this includes changing moral codes.

Even the supposed ultimate objective immutable moral law of "do not murder" is relative-- it depends on who is doing the killing and who is being killed. And each society, depending on its priorities, decides when killing is "execution" , when it is "self-defense", and when it is "murder". Same for stealing, illicit sexual relations, etc. And yes, part of this relative morality can lead to Nazism, too. Or Islamofascism. Or the murder of abortion doctors. Its all about dehumanizing and redefining who is a person.

When will you finally understand that, however unpleasant the thought, there is NO SUCH THING as absolute morality?

So you can scream up and down that whacking off and killing sperm is like murder (as the kitzur shulchan aruch says, much to the chagrin of orthodox adolescent boys)-- but ultimately morality is about reason, reducing suffering, and concensus.

The point is so simple that either you are being obtuse, or just faking it.

No, the torah does not say you are allowed to abort. However, it says that in a fight, when the life of a fetus is lost, the penalty is less than when the life of an adult is involved. Therefore, the life of a fetus, at least in the eyes of the Torah, is less valuable than the life of an adult.

Did you really not understand this?

So, again, you can scream and yell that Evolutionists promote abortions all you want. Nevermind that we do not. I suspect there are pro choice Evolutionists and there are pro life Evolutionists. Cameron told you his stance. Mine is a bit more complicated. But it has nothing to do with what I think about Evolution.

My point is that one little trick atheists seem to be using a lot lately (and that includes Cameron, that sneaky rascal! see his post of Sunday, April 13, 2008 7:59:00 PM above) is to say "Religion is surely no guide to morality. Quite the contrary! Religion promotes, who knows what, witch burning, heretic burning, cannibalism, bad breath and genital herpes! I, however, the atheist, uncorrupted by any ancient traditions, am able to express my full, natural love of all humanity. I have rediscovered my inner Noble Savage, with liberty and justice for all."

JP: Perhaps I tire sometimes of the oh-so-self-righteous atheists who mock the Talmud for not being in full compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or whatever is in fashion at the moment, but then turn around and do things a million times worse themselves, by redefining what is called a “person” or some other similar nonsense.

CH: Here's some basic math for you Jacob. More than 80% of the people in the US believe in God. Yet fully 50% (or thereabouts) believe that abortion should be legal. That means that a large percentage of those believe in the right to an abortion are also people who believe in God.

My point is that as a political issue it is not the atheists who are behind abortion - in large part it is the faithful.

JP: If I’m not mistaken, very few abortions, perhaps 10%, are done before the fetus has developed significantly.

CH: Yeah, so? I've never committed to defending abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy. I'm no fan of Hilary Clinton but her stance that abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare' is one I share.

JP: It’s so hard to pick through the drivel.

CH: You just described how it feels to read your blog posts.

JP: Let’s see. “all gene therapies are derived from principles of evolution” This would surprise Gregor Mendel, the founder of modern genetics, who was a creationist.

CH: Given that Mendel lived long before genetics was a science, let alone gene therapies, this would hardly be surprising. Cavemen would be surprised by gene therapies too - and coincidentally they were probably creationists as well. Go figure.

JP: My point is that one little trick atheists seem to be using a lot lately (and that includes Cameron, that sneaky rascal! see his post of Sunday, April 13, 2008 7:59:00 PM above) is to say "Religion is surely no guide to morality. Quite the contrary! Religion promotes, who knows what, witch burning, heretic burning, cannibalism, bad breath and genital herpes! I, however, the atheist, uncorrupted by any ancient traditions, am able to express my full, natural love of all humanity. I have rediscovered my inner Noble Savage, with liberty and justice for all."

To which I say: Bullshit.

CH: I think the fact you defend men who infect infant boys by mutilating and then sucking on their penises makes it clear whose morality is bullshit.

If it is mere 'fashion' to find such conduct not merely objectionable but positively criminal than I am proud to be a hipster.

Religion takes ancient practices that had some practical usefulness at the time, and turns them into precepts. Thus, for example, infant and child mortality was very high, you had more than one wife, and there were few convenient and effective methods of birth control, so you had a lot of kids. You hoped that some of the them would survive birth, disease, natural disasters, or war. Now, the orthodox have turned having alot of kids as a mitzvah and birth control as a sin. Abortion used to be a dangerous and deadly affair and rarely performed, and now that its easier its considered a sin. The same goes for styles/standards of clothing, codes for "cleanliness", terefa/nevelah, niddah, burial, animal sacrifices, minyan, etc.

Now this isn't a bad idea when you have to get a society to conform to some useful norms and coalesce around a common standard of behavior. Today we do that with laws. However, the fallacy of Judaism and other religions is to take these old standards, pretend that they are the word of God, convince other people that this is true (and threaten them with punishment in the afterlife if they don't conform), and resist change for the betterment of the world and reducing suffering.

I am reminded of the recent controversy here in Israel around sterilizing stray animals for humanitarian reasons, where the ultra-orthodox were arguing against it, claiming it violated the torah prohibition of cruelty to animals. On another issue, some ultraorthodox are finally coming around the the recognition that brain death is death, and allowing organ donation.

Are you saying that this practice would be ok but for the health hazard? If, say, the Mohel went to the oral surgeon who declared him free from infectious disease, are you saying that then sucking the penis is ok? You have the audacity to compare it to a kiss from a grandmother?

There is a middle ground, you are guilty of black or white, all or nothing thinking.

There are ways of perpetuating Jewish culture, ethics and history other than by hiding behind contradictory and irrational beliefs. For example, the State of Israel.

As long as distinct religions exist, I don't want to be first in disappearing, and I agree that continuity is a challenge. But in my view brainwashing young children into believing in a benevolent man in the sky controlling everything is not the way.

Bad, saliva contains an antibiotic enzyme and that is the original reason for this custom. Have you ever heard that dogs lick their wounds? That's why. And probably the kid is more likely to be killed by grandma (who will kiss him many times over the years) than by the rabbi. Check with your doctor.

badrabbi: Ok, so every time I have a wound, I will call my local rabbi to come and suck it for me!

CH: Suck it Rabbi, suck it. Yeah. Like that. So good. And you say it's anti-biotic too? Awesome. But next time could you shave first? I'm trying to picture Pam Anderson but the way you are tickling me wrecks it.

It is hard to get a grip on what Hitler's belief system was, he claimed to be a Christian, the he denounced Christianity as a slave religion, ala Nietche. He also was into mysticism and Nordic mythology. However, it is pretty clear from chapter eleven of "Mein Kampf" that his core belief system was Darwinism. He invaded Eastern Europe to find Leibensraum for the master race, not to spread Christianity. He built gas chambers to kill members of inferior races, and people he deemed genetically defective, not heretics.

I did some quick research a while bakc on the subject of Metzitza B'Pe. I found a total of ten cases in the literature in the past twenty years were herpes might have been caused by Metzitza B'Pe. Other studies say that from 1 to 10 newborns contracts herpes in the hospital or from contact woth caregivers. I'm sure that in the past twenty years a lot more than 20,000 babies recieved mila and Mitzitza B'Pe. The numbers would seem to indicate that Metzitza B'Pe is no more risky for a nuewborn than being handled by a caregiver.

Anyway, the two worst people who ever lived, Stalin and Mao, were atheists. There are more atheists on the top ten, for example, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Il Jong, etc. So it looks like atheists loose the morality contest.

He is referring to artificial selection. Artificial selection is almost exactly like Natural Selection. Natural selection is different in that it is a blind process without objective and artificial selection progress toward the goals of the humans performing it.

Also Nat, in the 20th century, the time of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, and others, the deaths from crime and combat reached their lowest levels per capita in history.

Hitler seems to have been all over the place when it comes to beliefs. What motivated him to go to war, and commit genecide however, was Darwinism. Hitler made no disticntion between natural and artificial selection. He sadi that war and the extermination of inferior races was perfectly natural. What he flet was artificial was Judeo/Christian morality. Darwin himself said that it was inevitable, and perfectly natural, that the more advanced races would extrminate the less evloved races.

And while we're discussing statistics, could you provide some that show how it is possible for the percentage of was casualties is less for the 20Th century, when we had WWI and WWII.

A higher percentage of American Citizens are in prison now than any other time in American history. That could be why crime rates are down. And I understand that now crime rates in Europe are going up. I recently read that the murder rate in England is so high that they have to let murderers go, because they don't have room form them in prison.

natschuster: What motivated him to go to war, and commit genecide however, was Darwinism.

CH: Pure BS. Not surprising that you have no evidence (evidence being irrelevant to people of faith) and that you continue to ignore what Hitler wrote in his own words about how he is doing 'the Lord's work'.

But by all means continue to fabricate whatever nonsense you need to feel better about Hitler's religiosity.

Here's the thing, even if you were absolutely correct, and Hitler launched his programs for genocide because of his belief in Darwin.

That still wouldn't mean Darwin is wrong, it would only mean that an insane dictator abused the truth about evolution for his own ends.

If Stalin had decided to starve the Poles because he really, really liked green jello, it doesn't follow that green jello is really to blame for the deaths of the poles - Stalin is.

Hitler wrote quite clearly in chapter eleven of Mein Kampf that he was planning on invading Eastern Europe to find Leibensraum for the Master Race, very similar to what Darwin wrote. He wrote that by persuing a Darwinist plolicy he was doing God's will. He turned Darwinism into a religion.

Interesting you should bring up the Hebrew invasion of Canaan which was a religiously motivated war, and compare it to the Darwinian motivated Nazi Genocide. The Book of Joshua says that the Israelites left many Canaanites alive. They hads mercy. The Darwinian driven Nazis, however, killed as many Jews, (and Gypsys( as they could without any restraint. So it would seem that even when commiting Genocide, people motivated by religion are not quite as bad as people driven by Darwinism. Just a thought.

natschuster: Hitler wrote quite clearly in chapter eleven of Mein Kampf that he was planning on invading Eastern Europe to find Leibensraum for the Master Race...

CH: No disagreement from me.

NS: very similar to what Darwin wrote.

CH: I am unaware of anything Darwin has written regarding a master race or Lebensraum. Perhaps you would consider actually quoting your source material?

NS: He wrote that by persuing a Darwinist plolicy he was doing God's will.

CH: Then he wasn't an atheist was he? I've never denied that Nazis had a perverted sense of what Darwin was about (no more than I have denied that evolutionary theory was abused by those who promoted eugenics - including otherwise notable luminaries like US Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes).

However, that the Nazis had a perverted belief in Darwin is not at issue - what is is whether or not Hitler was an atheist - and given his own words - he definitely was not.

I don't think you really understand evolution judging from your ill fitting analogy. Evolution is based on genetic mutation which occurs all the time; certain diseases, such as cancer, are genetic mutations. Occasionally genetic mutations are beneficial to the organisms. When that organisms reproduces, its offspring inherit that mutated gene and so on. The gene equips them with certain abilities to survive that other members of the species do not posses and so they win the battle when they compete for food and space. They thrive while those without the gene die out because they cannot compete.

"Atheists seem to choose this belief because it allows them greater sexual freedom."

That must be the one single most ridiculous statement I have ever heard.

Atheists choose said belief because they find any other explanation impossible to believe in. This is because the atheist look upon the concept of God as fictional.

Just like you can't force yourself to believe that Santa exist, an atheist can't force himself to believe that God does. I don't want to make myself believe in something I consider a lie.

Had I believed in an almighty God who could punish me eternally, I'd be terrified of doing something wrong in His eyes. I would not pretend to believe something else for sexual benefits.

I respect your view on there being a God, and I don't think it makes you a worse person than I am.Please respect that I don't believe in the same God, and do not spread malevolent statements concerning my belief.

JP, when are you going to make a post about the evil heliocentric theory forced upon us by the depraved secularists and the lies and false evidence to prop it up against the Torah true geocentric model?

Hey..Have any of you considered the second law of Thermodynamics.The total entropy of a closed system will be continually increasing.Meaning the randomness or chaos on the Earth will go on increasing with time...This implies that the complex organisms could not have EVOVLVED from simple ones.As the whole universe being in a state of degeneration would only allow a break down i.e. the opposite of evolution...

What foolishness you creationists believe. Yes the probability of a creature evolving by chance is small but you have to realise the literal trillions of interactions which took place even in the earliest time of the Earth. Billions of interactions daily over billions of years make pretty decent odds. On your arguement of God's transcendence, we have more proof of evolution than you have of any God and no religious scripture counts as suitably advanced E.T.s could easily perform "miracles" etc so no proof of God there.

Also your understanding of events are clearly wrong. An extinction occurs therefore life endures greater hardship so must adapt quickly to survive hence more complex forms. Also of course the fossil record is sketchy, we can't find all the humans so far buried in the last 1,000 years so imagine what 1,000 or 10,000 times this space of time will do to a fossil.

Also natural selection can to some degree "fix it to make it better" many viruses can remove and add genetic material into a host thus helping it survive and thus the virus. This propegates natural selection and can of course help advance species.

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew and I live in Rockland County, NY.
I was raised as a non-practicing Lutheran by my adopted parents and I converted to Judaism at age 16.
This blog as a rule follows the teachings of the Lithuanian rabbinical seminaries of the 1920s and 1930s. Specifically, I have been very influenced by the recordings and writings of Rabbi Avigdor Miller obm.
Click for more details about me.